Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Do Conservatives Actually Believe Their Own Lies?

Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly at 10:29 AM on May 23, 2009.


Blatant dishonesty for partisan gain is much easier to understand than rampant stupidity among leading federal lawmakers.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

For years now, many of us have pondered the question: conservative Republicans don't actually believe their arguments, do they? Publius considers this in the context of the hopelessly bizarre debate over the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The right is probably lying, hoping to exploit the politics of fear, but what if conservatives have come to accept their own nonsense?

[T]here's actually one thing even more disturbing than Republican dishonesty -- the possibility that they are sincerely afraid of transferring the detainees. Some critics are clearly lying -- no argument there. But it may well be that other Republicans are sincerely worried that the detainees' evilness cannot be contained by any prison, or that they will brainwash their hapless prisonmates. [...]

[W]hat's truly disturbing is that a sizeable chunk of the public still fears that the Gitmo detainees are so dangerous that they could break out and destroy towns in America with laser beams from their eyes. Some of the detainees are, of course, very bad and dangerous people. But the idea that America is so very fragile and helpless in the face of these overpowering evil forces that we can't transfer the detainees to another prison (or give them real trials) is absurd.

So let's hope the GOP really is lying on this one.

That would be more comforting. Blatant dishonesty for partisan gain is much easier to understand than rampant stupidity among leading federal lawmakers.

It's hard to say with any certainty, and there's no doubt some variety within the group -- some liars and some fools -- but for what it's worth, there's ample evidence to support the "blatant dishonesty for partisan gain" theory. The Wall Street Journal reports today that Republicans see the debate over Gitmo as "the culmination of a carefully developed GOP strategy," which they hope to use as "the beginning of a political comeback."

The goal, apparently, was to identify a "favorable issue" on which the party could go on the offensive; "tarnish" Democratic leaders; and attack until the criticisms "begin to seem counterproductive."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) concluded more than a year ago that Mr. Obama might be vulnerable on Guantanamo -- and the unease voters would have over the prospect of transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. soil. Since April 20 he has delivered 17 floor speeches on the issue. Mr. McConnell beat back party dissent over his strategy, as some argued it was a losing battle when the president enjoyed such high poll numbers.

The attacks, in other words, are largely a cynical ploy, predicated on Republican hopes that public fear will outweigh public reason, and that most Americans won't realize how spectacularly dishonest the whole argument is.

That beats widespread stupidity, I suppose.

Digg!

Tagged as: republicans, gop, lies, guantanamo, gitmo, mitch mcconnell

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."


House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
House Will Take Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment, Threatening Women's Rights
The House leadership bows to anti-choice congressmen, allowing them a vote on an anti-choice amendment to the health-care bill.
Post by RH Reality Check. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'd put em in four categories
Posted by: UnEasyOne on May 23, 2009 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Knowing, intentional paid liars and propagandists who either subscribe to a "higher truth" and feel completely comfortable with complete fabrication in furtherance or "truthiness" and the cynical, psychopathic power seekers who are untroubled by any taint of honesty and will cooperate fervently to fulfill their lust for fame, wealth, and/or power. They inhabit politics, the media and fascist "fantasy factories' as I call them. "Think tanks" in the common parlance.

2) Cynical sophisticates outside the first group who understand the game exactly and play along because it is in their cynical best interest.

3) Suckers. Some of them actually know better, but their emotions, fear, anger, a sense of being wronged are easily manipulated - especially when tweaked by a play on their prejudices.

4) This is perhaps the smallest numeric category, but the most influential. The money men. They fund the prevaricators, control the media, and buy the politicos. They don't really give a damn what is said - as long as it hews to their best interest.

Problem is, they overplayed their hand. They came to believe that they could tell any lie, no matter how absurd and the suckers would eat it up. Since he is unemployed now and his job is now in some foreign country, Joe Sucker has a little more time to think. All that ideology is nice, but right now, he just wants a frakin' job! A six-pack would be nice too. If he has a job, he'd rather it didn't go to Columbia or Panama. And health care that doesn't keep him broke in the good times and bankrupt him when things turn south.

He has noticed that the Republicans did not provide those things. When load after load of fresh bullshit is being dumped directly onto your head, it is really difficult to convince oneself that it smells like roses.

Democrats are now crowing about their emerging "permanent majority." Republicans are in the toilet and swirling down the drain. Party time!

Here's the problem. Joe Sucker hasn't really changed, he's just desperate at the moment. "Any port in a storm," is the old saying. When his belly is full again and he has a brand new credit card with zero balance, he will be the same old Joe. It's his nature - and nobody knows how to manipulate that like the Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know what?
Posted by: Quannah on May 23, 2009 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could give a rat's ass if they believe their own bullshit or not. It doesn't make any of it any more legitimate!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You know what? LOL! Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: You know what? LOL! Posted by: Quannah
» RE: You know what? LOL! Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: You know what? LOL! Posted by: Quannah
So Privatizing the Prison system has left US less safe, Too??
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 24, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So are the Repugs admitting that these Private Prison system Corps are inept and incapbale of securing any prisoner. Gee Perhaps we should go back to having these institutions run by the State and Federal Gov't then.
Well Thank You Repugs I have always thought Profitizing public services- such as prisons, or healthcare, or energy was fundemently a conflict of interest too.When you are more concerned with the bottom line and your shareholders dividend checks it is typical to cut corners- not investing in updates, hiring the cheapest workers, offer substandard services and conditions.
Your are Correct Repugs the Private Prison Corps can not be trusted to keep these criminals contained. But since we can not release all those being held now- perhaps we should just revoke the Corps Contracts. Seems our Public Funded Military has done a good job of avoiding escape from the prisons they run- so Obviously a Gov't run institution is far more capable and provides more protection to the general public than those Private Profitteers.
I love when the Repugs offer up yet another reason to get Private for Profit Corps out of the business of providing Public Works services.Obviously they are also doing a shit job with Healthcare.
And with all their worries about international conflicts or Weather disrupting their ability to provide energy- we should take those things out of their Inept hands too. I mean if you feel that a tropical storm could throw your riggers off line and decide you must drive up pricing to cover the potential cost or shortfall- your system seems to have some serious problems and weakness.
Perhaps the Prison system is yet another area that Private For Profit Corps just can't cut the Mustard in providing the Required quality of service.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Galli
Posted by: bobgalli on May 25, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK - I'm going into oversimplification (maybe even ridiculous) mode (and no, I'm neither Republican/conservative nor do I work for Faux News). Let's see - there are 200 some 'detainees', none of whom have been tried, and, consequently convicted - so - why not just send them back to Afghanistan, or wherever O.B. Laden is, to rejoin that group - after all, what's another 200 or so ‘bad guys’? How can they be any more dangerous than those out there already? To the extent they're really bad guys, this would also put them back 'in the line of fire' and perhaps in the position of suicide bombers - voila!! Detainees off to their heaven! That way, all the NIMBYs would be satisfied - no bad guys in their neighborhoods (albeit in virtually inescapable prisons), and all the bad guys would be back 'home' and, I suspect, adding less than 1% to the overall bad 'crowd'.

I am so disgusted with the Republicans’ (including the nasties on radio and TV – Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, et al) nasty, self-serving (not 'public serving') positions and becoming a bit disappointed in the Democrats' backing away from what should be done - either imprison and try the 'detainees' or release them to wherever. I'm afraid some of our principles, which should be applied to all persons, are being eroded. If that, indeed, occurs, then I submit it becomes easier to argue that bin Laden 'won' by disrupting our morality, straining our economy and corrupting our sense of justice.

Just a thought. In truth, I believe this country is more than strong enough to weather this storm but we better increase the pace. I can’t wait until Al Franken is seated.

Let's all hope (and vote) for the best
Regards to all
BG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well How Bout We Promise
Posted by: weslen1 on May 25, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To EXORCISE their demons before we let them cross the ocean?
And then we'll exorcise the right wing nut jobs from our government.
As long as they believe that CALLING someone else a "terrorist" makes them deserve to be held in prison forever, tortured and/or murdered on that say so alone, none of us are safe. Right now, the TERRORIST, EXTREMISTS are right here preaching the VIRTUES of torture.
Personally I am more terrified of those extremists who spent the last 30 or so years looting the Social Security money faster than it came in and now tell ME that they need to CUT my already way too low check or take it away all together. Those who make it clear that as fast as they can they will drive away the Medicare and Medicaid doctors and let us all die. As the NEWT said, "Keep it underfunded and starve it to death. Let it die on the vine."
Those who send young men and women into phony "wars" and then take away THEIR health care OR put them in roach and rat infested "barracks" to be treated in FILTH when they come back wounded.
BUNCH OF FILTHY HYPOCRITES!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sincere Lies
Posted by: Urgelt on May 25, 2009 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lying? Sure, they're lying, and they know they are lying through their teeth. Give them some credit.

But they are sincerely lying.

Both parties came to understand many years ago that getting the upper hand in American politics would be done through advertising, not through reasoned discourse and debate or the merits of political positions.

Americans are vulnerable to ads, and ads are always false - their purpose is to instill illogical and untrue impressions and beliefs so that we will consume more of what is being sold.

Every dollar spent on advertising results in 4 dollars in higher sales; but of course good ads do better, and lousy ads do worse. So you have to figure out the right lies to tell, and tell them in the right way.

What the Republicans are doing is trying to hit on a new advertising strategy that will show some traction against Obama's very successful advertising and branding.

Underneath the lies is absolute sincerity. Republicans loathe socialism and welfare. They loathe taxing the rich. They loathe regulations and trust-busting. They loathe the UN, gays, Mexicans, Castro, and populist Muslim movements (but those rich oil sheiks, they're ok). They sincerely want their hands on the tiller of state. Most of all, they want their place at the government trough.

A sincere liar is a liar who believes, not in his lies, but in the necessity of lying. Republicans are perfectly aware that an honest presentation of their political goals would fall flat with most Americans. It's an uphill struggle for their agenda; always has been. They are in the awkward position of championing the rich in a perpetual, undeclared class war - when most voters aren't rich. The only way Republicans will ever see political daylight is to lie their heads off, or disenfranchise the non-rich.

They're working on that, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Common Sense Arguments
Posted by: ehensleyky on May 26, 2009 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that these detainees could recruit and terrorists seems to have two obvious flaws. First, they don't speak English, do they? Second, criminals or not, I believe most Americans hate and despise "terrorists". If the prisoners were allowed to mingle, I predict the detainees would be dead in no time. Who could possibly believe the argument that they would recruit among the prison population?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]